Digital BW, The Print

can anyone comment on this?

 I am looking at "possibly" purchasing an Epson 3800 as opposed to a 
R2400. 
 the only issues that concerns me are this, the 3800 has no 3rd party 
carts available at this time and may never, AND QTR is the only 
available option (aside from ABW and expensive RIP's) . 
 
 I have used both IJC/OPM and QTR, and find IJC to be easier to 
manipulate. I could get my curves set very easily and PRECISELY with 
IJC. I had much more trouble getting QTR where I wanted them.
 I could get my curves set EXACTLY as I wanted them, due to the 
graphical interface, and it functioning similar to Photoshop (or at 
least the curve interface)


 my question is: can QTR be manipulated to the same degree as IJC. 
with IJC's interface, I could easily set my LM (or any color) to a 
VERY specific level, and adjust any part of LM curve to a very fine 
degree. I could adjust my LM/LC/ LLK (or whatever color or jet) with 
great detail anywhere along that curve.

 I somewhat gave up on QTR at that time. probably due to the fact 
that I tend to work more visually, and QTR causes you to think about 
vs."see" what your doing.
 don't misunderstand, I'm not criticizing QTR, I think it's a great 
program, I just felt IJC offered more control of the ink values 
across the entire range.

 am I mistaken on that issue? can QTR offer the same amount of 
control but with more effort on my behalf????
 if I can give me the control I had with IJC (not available for the 
3800), I very well might purchase one.

 I would appreciate anyone with experience with the two commenting.

 thanks to all
 even

This sounds like good news:

>
>             December 20, 2007
>
> *NINESTAR PRESS RELEASE:* ZHUHAI, China \ufffd Recently, the United States 
> Patent and Trademark Office has issued an office action, which rejects 
> Seiko Epson's two patents, including claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 of U.S 
> Patent No.6,502,917( the \ufffd917\ufffd patent) , and claims 
> 1-8,15-17,19-23,26-30,33 and 37-39 of U.S. Patent No. 7,008,053(the\ufffd 
> 053\ufffd patent), for the reason that the patents applied some prior art 
> and was lack of novelty and creativity. This rejection by U.S. PTO is 
> in response to Ninestar\ufffds request to re-examine the invalidity of the 
> patents <http://www.rechargermag.com/articles/48147/> in September 2007.
>
> According to Ninestar, this initial rejection of the \ufffd917\ufffd patent and 
> \ufffd053\ufffd patent by the U.S.PTO will raise a question of rationality of 
> the order issued by ITC and create favorable conditions for Ninestar's 
> legal cases in the Federal Circuit Court in the future and for 
> Ninestar to continuously sell its own patented products in the U.S. 
> market.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "evanj1969" 
<evanj69@...> wrote:
>
... 
>  I have used both IJC/OPM and QTR, and find IJC to be easier to 
> manipulate. 

I initially prefered the IJC curves interface also.


>...
> can QTR be manipulated to the same degree as IJC. 

Actually, QTR allows for better control.  I now use the QTR point 
list, which allows up to 51 points on a curve.  Moreover, decimal 
points are allowed in the boxes.  I believe the full 16 bit range is 
available (as opposed to IJC's 256 steps and only 10 points).  This 
degree of precision is way beyond what even the most compulsive would 
need.

It does take some experience to learn how to do the work using the 
points list.  It has a curve preview that is very useful, but beware 
that the smoothing algorithm is not previewed.  As such, you have to 
look carefully at the final curves set that is displayed when you 
make the profile.  That will show whether the smoothing algorithm has 
done something unexpected.

At any rate, both of these programs are excellent, having different 
strenghts.  But don't worry about the ultimate degree of control in 
QTR.  At least with the Windows interface I use, there is almost 
unlimited control.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

The bad news is that the president went ahead and signed off on the 
ITC decision despite this contrary PTO ruling.  The PTO ruling, 
however, appears to be in line with the latest Supreme Court decision 
(KSR), whereas the ITC arguably applied the wrong standard for 
obviousness.  So, there'll be appeals. This will probably drag on for 
a while, and in the meantime, I'm sure the vendors wonder just what 
they can or cannot do.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt 
<pdesmidt@...> wrote:
>
> This sounds like good news:
> 
> >
> >             December 20, 2007
> >
> > *NINESTAR PRESS RELEASE:* ZHUHAI, China — Recently, the United 
States 
> > Patent and Trademark Office has issued an office action, which 
rejects 
> > Seiko Epson's two patents, including claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 
of U.S 
> > Patent No.6,502,917( the "917" patent) , and claims 
> > 1-8,15-17,19-23,26-30,33 and 37-39 of U.S. Patent No. 7,008,053
(the" 
> > 053" patent), for the reason that the patents applied some prior 
art 
> > and was lack of novelty and creativity. This rejection by U.S. 
PTO is 
> > in response to Ninestar's request to re-examine the invalidity of 
the 
> > patents <http://www.rechargermag.com/articles/48147/> in 
September 2007.
> >
> > According to Ninestar, this initial rejection of the "917" patent 
and 
> > "053" patent by the U.S.PTO will raise a question of rationality 
of 
> > the order issued by ITC and create favorable conditions for 
Ninestar's 
> > legal cases in the Federal Circuit Court in the future and for 
> > Ninestar to continuously sell its own patented products in the 
U.S. 
> > market.
>

thanks Paul, that is the kind of info I'm looking for.
and yes, I'm a windows user (at least at home)


> Actually, QTR allows for better control.  I now use the QTR point 
> list, which allows up to 51 points on a curve.  Moreover, decimal 
> points are allowed in the boxes.  I believe the full 16 bit range 
is 
> available (as opposed to IJC's 256 steps and only 10 points).  This 
> degree of precision is way beyond what even the most compulsive 
would 
> need.


 so if I understand correctly:

 YES, I will have the same amount of control over each ink (or jet) 
limit and curve shape, the same as I do in IJC, but just with more 
points to actually manipulate. it's just and issue of the interface 
being a numerical interface vs. a graphical interface?
 based on your comments, I take it you prefer QTR at this point over 
IJC/OPM?

 is all of the above correct?


 It does take some experience to learn how to do the work using the 
> points list.  It has a curve preview that is very useful, but 
beware 
> that the smoothing algorithm is not previewed.  As such, you have 
to 
> look carefully at the final curves set that is displayed when you 
> make the profile.  That will show whether the smoothing algorithm 
has 
> done something unexpected.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean there. could you elaborate??


> At any rate, both of these programs are excellent, having different 
> strenghts.  But don't worry about the ultimate degree of control in 
> QTR.  At least with the Windows interface I use, there is almost 
> unlimited control.

 just curious, what do you consider IJC/OPM's strengths (aside from 
the graphical interface)?

 thanks as always
 evan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "evanj1969" 
<evanj69@...> wrote:
...

> > Actually, QTR allows for better control. ... 
> 
>  so if I understand correctly:
> 
>  YES, I will have the same amount of control over each ink (or jet) 
> limit and curve shape, the same as I do in IJC, but just with more 
> points to actually manipulate.

If you want them.  I've never used all of the QTR points, whereas I 
found myself wanting more points in IJC.

> it's just and issue of the interface 
> being a numerical interface vs. a graphical interface?

Yes. 


>  based on your comments, I take it you prefer QTR at this 
> point over IJC/OPM?
> 
>  is all of the above correct?

Yes.



> 
> 
> > It does take some experience to learn how to do the work 
> > using the points list.  It has a curve preview that is 
> > very useful, but  beware that the smoothing algorithm is
> > not previewed.  As such, you have  to 
> > look carefully at the final curves set that is displayed
> >  when you make the profile.  That will show whether the 
> > smoothing algorithm  has done something unexpected.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean there. could you elaborate??

These programs usually if not always attempt to smooth the curve 
you've written.  Sometimes these attempts, rather than smooth the 
curve, throw a bulge or other un-wanted artifact into the curve that 
is not in your interest.  (I almost wish I could turn the algorithms 
off, but that has not been an option in the programs I've worked 
with.)  So, the bottom line is to just inspect the final curves set 
very carefully to be sure it looks smooth and the way you intended it.

If there is a bulge or spike that is un-intended, that is where the 
high resolution of QTR can really pay off.  I sometimes put in a 
points that are only one integer apart so that I, in effect, manually 
take over how the curve will make a sharp turn.

This is just one of those things you learn about each program as you 
use it.  Suffice it to say, QTR's high number of points and very fine 
(16 bit curves) "resolution" in the interface really allow great 
control over the curves. 

>  just curious, what do you consider IJC/OPM's strengths 
> (aside from the graphical interface)?

That's pretty much it.  Actually, I think one of the greatest 
strengths that both programs enjoy is the quality of the individuals 
who write them.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Evan,

I wrote the user's manual for IJC/OPM.  Loved the interface for 
building curves, but the support was lacking and the user community 
small.  To the best of my knowledge, IJC/OPM doesn't even support the 
3800 after all this time.  I finally gave up.  

As Paul mentioned, QTR has more control, and more options for quality 
output.  I prefer the output from QTR, especially when using 2880 
dpi, unidirectional printing and the ordered algorithm.  Building 
curves with QTR does take some getting used to, but it's very 
effective once you get your arms around it.  Personally, I like using 
Plot Lists (Paul has lots of info on that at his site).  Another big 
plus is the HUGE user community, lots of shared profiles, and great 
support from Roy and others.  

Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "evanj1969" 
<evanj69@...> wrote:
>
> can anyone comment on this?
> 
>  I am looking at "possibly" purchasing an Epson 3800 as opposed to 
a 
> R2400. 
>  the only issues that concerns me are this, the 3800 has no 3rd 
party 
> carts available at this time and may never, AND QTR is the only 
> available option (aside from ABW and expensive RIP's) . 
>  
>  I have used both IJC/OPM and QTR, and find IJC to be easier to 
> manipulate. I could get my curves set very easily and PRECISELY 
with 
> IJC. I had much more trouble getting QTR where I wanted them.
>  I could get my curves set EXACTLY as I wanted them, due to the 
> graphical interface, and it functioning similar to Photoshop (or at 
> least the curve interface)
> 
> 
>  my question is: can QTR be manipulated to the same degree as IJC. 
> with IJC's interface, I could easily set my LM (or any color) to a 
> VERY specific level, and adjust any part of LM curve to a very fine 
> degree. I could adjust my LM/LC/ LLK (or whatever color or jet) 
with 
> great detail anywhere along that curve.
> 
>  I somewhat gave up on QTR at that time. probably due to the fact 
> that I tend to work more visually, and QTR causes you to think 
about 

> vs."see" what your doing.
>  don't misunderstand, I'm not criticizing QTR, I think it's a great 
> program, I just felt IJC offered more control of the ink values 
> across the entire range.
> 
>  am I mistaken on that issue? can QTR offer the same amount of 
> control but with more effort on my behalf????
>  if I can give me the control I had with IJC (not available for the 
> 3800), I very well might purchase one.
> 
>  I would appreciate anyone with experience with the two commenting.
> 
>  thanks to all
>  even
>

I've recently started testing out QTR, and so far, so good.  I haven't 
found any explanation of the various dithering options, though.  Anyone 
know what these are? (I have searched on the QTR yahoo site, but I 
didn't find the info.)

Peter De Smidt wrote:
> I've recently started testing out QTR, and so far, so good.  I haven't 
> found any explanation of the various dithering options, though.  Anyone 
> know what these are? (I have searched on the QTR yahoo site, but I 
> didn't find the info.)

Enough threads on the QTR list on the dithering but I 
selected one of them here, I guessed Clayton wouldn't mind:


 >>
Hello Ernst,

 > >What are the best results with QTR and BO for the 
different  Dither
 > >Algorithms ?  The effect must be more visible in BO 
printing and may
 > >vary per printer and paper. I also wonder what looks 
most alike the
 > >Epson driver in BO mode. Just curious.

I've been wondering that myself (haven't used QTR much yet, been
working only with the "Ordered" setting which is slightly
tighter/smoother than Epson) so your question made me go 
find out.  On
a 2200 w/ Eboni and my current QTR BO curve (still under 
development)
I printed a step wedge on EEM for each dither setting and 
compared
them.  All were with 2880 and "Faster" speed setting (more 
about that
below).  Here are the results:

-----------------------------------------------
Ordered - smaller patterns of dots than Epson's squigglies, 
slightly
tighter pattern, slightly smoother in appearance.

Adaptive Hybrid - tiny difference in pattern if you look 
hard for it
with the loupe, but for eyeball appearance is nearly 
indistinguishable
from Ordered.

Fast - Pretty much same as Adaptive Hybrid, but under the 
loupe I see
a tiny bit of dither banding.

Very Fast - Horrible!  Prints streaks of graphic patterns.

Hybrid Floyd-Steinberg - Surprise!  Very tight and smooth. 
Noticeably
smoother to the eye compared to Ordered and Epson.

EvenTone - More surprise.  Ever so slightly smoother than 
Hybrid FS.
-----------------------------------------------

For a more practical test to verify the above, I printed a 
landscape
with clouds, an image that has always showed up BO weakest area,
smooth midtones.  It verified all of the above ramp 
observations.
There is a place in the clouds with little swirling patterns 
that are
barely defined in Epson BO, are a tiny bit better with 
Ordered, and
are very crisp and clearly defined with HFS and EvenTone, with
EvenTone being a tiny bit the better of those.

I am delighted.  This is going to make a huge difference to 
BO lovers.
  Just on this one test print I can see it's an enormous 
improvement,
with a greatly reduced grainy look and retains the 
luminance.  Now I
just need to finish working on the curve.  It's still too 
blocked up
at the dark end.  I will post it as soon as it's done, 
probably over
the coming weekend.  Wahoo!  Imahappycamper.  Why didn't I 
try this
before???!!!!  Still need to test with other papers...

About the "Speed" setting: I printed a TrueTone ramp with 
Speed set to
"Better" (still 2880), and it messed up the ramp, 
introducing some
bumps and streaks into what had been a smooth ramp using 
"Faster"


Regards,
Clayton
<<


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Hello All,

It's easy to miss something here. And, I can't seem to wrap my head around this.

My brain has labeled my 1270 as BO using MIS black, and, my 3000 as QTR with Quad Tones.

Using QTR with a single ink for BO?? It does make some sense, but I would like to know if that is a valid approach.

gar



*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 1/6/08 at 11:48 AM Ernst Dinkla wrote:

>Peter De Smidt wrote:
>> I've recently started testing out QTR, and so far, so good.  I haven't 
>> found any explanation of the various dithering options, though.  Anyone 
>> know what these are? (I have searched on the QTR yahoo site, but I 
>> didn't find the info.)
>
>Enough threads on the QTR list on the dithering but I 
>selected one of them here, I guessed Clayton wouldn't mind:
>
>
> >>
>Hello Ernst,
>
> > >What are the best results with QTR and BO for the 
>different  Dither
> > >Algorithms ?  The effect must be more visible in BO 
>printing and may
> > >vary per printer and paper. I also wonder what looks 
>most alike the
> > >Epson driver in BO mode. Just curious.
>
>I've been wondering that myself (haven't used QTR much yet, been
>working only with the "Ordered" setting which is slightly
>tighter/smoother than Epson) so your question made me go 
>find out.  On
>a 2200 w/ Eboni and my current QTR BO curve (still under 
>development)
>I printed a step wedge on EEM for each dither setting and 
>compared
>them.  All were with 2880 and "Faster" speed setting (more 
>about that
>below).  Here are the results:
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>Ordered - smaller patterns of dots than Epson's squigglies, 
>slightly
>tighter pattern, slightly smoother in appearance.
>
>Adaptive Hybrid - tiny difference in pattern if you look 
>hard for it
>with the loupe, but for eyeball appearance is nearly 
>indistinguishable
>from Ordered.
>
>Fast - Pretty much same as Adaptive Hybrid, but under the 
>loupe I see
>a tiny bit of dither banding.
>
>Very Fast - Horrible!  Prints streaks of graphic patterns.
>
>Hybrid Floyd-Steinberg - Surprise!  Very tight and smooth. 
>Noticeably
>smoother to the eye compared to Ordered and Epson.
>
>EvenTone - More surprise.  Ever so slightly smoother than 
>Hybrid FS.
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>For a more practical test to verify the above, I printed a 
>landscape
>with clouds, an image that has always showed up BO weakest area,
>smooth midtones.  It verified all of the above ramp 
>observations.
>There is a place in the clouds with little swirling patterns 
>that are
>barely defined in Epson BO, are a tiny bit better with 
>Ordered, and
>are very crisp and clearly defined with HFS and EvenTone, with
>EvenTone being a tiny bit the better of those.
>
>I am delighted.  This is going to make a huge difference to 
>BO lovers.
>  Just on this one test print I can see it's an enormous 
>improvement,
>with a greatly reduced grainy look and retains the 
>luminance.  Now I
>just need to finish working on the curve.  It's still too 
>blocked up
>at the dark end.  I will post it as soon as it's done, 
>probably over
>the coming weekend.  Wahoo!  Imahappycamper.  Why didn't I 
>try this
>before???!!!!  Still need to test with other papers...
>
>About the "Speed" setting: I printed a TrueTone ramp with 
>Speed set to
>"Better" (still 2880), and it messed up the ramp, 
>introducing some
>bumps and streaks into what had been a smooth ramp using 
>"Faster"
>
>
>Regards,
>Clayton
><<
>
>
>-- 
>Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst
>
>
>|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
>|     www.pigment-print.com    |
>|             ( unvollendet )            |
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
>they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
>Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
>membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
>printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
>the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
>and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files
>section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
>“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
>YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
>EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
>PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
>“OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
>ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
>OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
>UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
>STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
>PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Yes. It works as well for one ink as it does for 8 since each is
independently controlled.

Regards
Duane



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Weaver"
<garww@...> wrote:
> 
> Using QTR with a single ink for BO?? It does make some sense, but I
would like to know if that is a valid approach.
> 
> gar

Thank you,

I had thought about this somewhat - 'specially when I heard MIS was dropping the original Quads.

I don't want to mess around with ink selections, I just want something I can perfect. BO on the 4-color sounds dubious, but I need to try it and see what I can work with.

gar

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 1/6/08 at 8:27 PM dlruckus wrote:

>Yes. It works as well for one ink as it does for 8 since each is
>independently controlled.
>
>Regards
>Duane
>
>
>
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Weaver"
><garww@...> wrote:
>> 
>> Using QTR with a single ink for BO?? It does make some sense, but I
>would like to know if that is a valid approach.
>> 
>> gar
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
>they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
>Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
>membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
>printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
>the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
>and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files
>section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
>“MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
>YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
>EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
>PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
>“OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
>ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
>OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
>UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
>STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
>PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>